<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi.<BR>
<BR>Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org <BR>Mon Mar 29 15:15:19 CEST 2010 <BR>
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:<BR>
<BR>> I agree that for the most part, dates in subtags are unnecessarily <BR>> inscrutable, and we should try to avoid them except when they are <BR>> genuinely relevant to the identity of the variant being identified. <BR>> Many language variations are codified in documents, which happen to have <BR>> been written or published in a certain year, which might not mean <BR>> anything to users.<BR>
> I would be fine with "robinson" or some variation, as opposed to <BR>> "ulster," if that would provide a better hint that Robinson's <BR>> orthography, and not the dialect, is what is being represented.<BR>I would be fine with [robinson] if we could just make it [ulster-robinson], or some such nonsense,<BR>but we cannot.<BR>So I like Michael Everson's suggestion. (Sorry Doug; I usually agree with you.)<BR><BR>Or else just [ulster] with Robinson left to the description field?<BR>Best,<BR>
C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR> </body>
</html>